4 ms·

I sometimes wonder... Do the leaders of such corrupt states think that is a better way to run things, and if so why? I might guess it's as simple as "anything e

I sometimes wonder... Do the leaders of such corrupt states think that is a better way to run things, and if so why? I might guess it's as simple as "anything else would be worse for me personally" but that seems to simplistic for a guy like Putin. And if they dont think it's better, then why not change it? Inertia? Backlash? Don't know how to get there from here?

chrischen 5y ago
The best way to run things is the way I run things.
ghoward 5y ago
To learn some of the answers to those questions, may I suggest you start with a particular YouTube video [1] (and its sequel [2]) and the book that inspired them [3]? [1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs [2]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU https://youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator's_Handbook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator's_Handbook
NotChina 5y ago
No more corrupt than the USA.
- SamTwardowski 5y ago
  America and American elections aren't corrupt; they are fortified.
pjc50 5y ago
> anything else would be worse for me personally" No, that's mostly it. Along with an enjoyment of power and control and the suffering of others for its own sake. He's built a multi billion dollar palace, he's not going to risk losing power.
- buran77 5y ago
  That's the oversimplification that wraps things up nicely and doesn't require digging any deeper. Like when people think Kim Jong Un is necessarily just a madman without realizing that playing the madman is the perfect defense against outside interference. Give up their nukes? Ukraine did that, they even have a signed treaty with Russia for this. Iran signed a piece of paper with the US too. That turned out well for everyone who is a superpower. Authoritarianism isn't required to get richer than you could otherwise as an already powerful person. Look at democratic countries (all still having a measure of corruption) where having slightly more money and power than most people gives you access to huge wealth and immunity from the law, a positive feedback loop where money begets money. Did the Sacklers need to be crazy dictators to get even richer while throwing a wad of cash at the government in exchange for full immunity? Regular people get civil asset forfeiture but for rich people there no law to find them guilty and take back all the money, the only way is to negotiate a consolation settlement? Obviously lobbying for donations or plain old influence peddling will get you incredibly far, maybe even further than dictatorship. Putin doesn't need this level of authority to stay rich and powerful as a former member of the intelligence community. He needs it because he has grandiose dreams of Russian imperialism, bringing them back to former superpower glory after seeing that the post USSR breakup times and trying to integrate into the Western world made them play fifth fiddle. This needs the authoritarianism because Russia is lacking the other quality of life elements to afford selling the "glory" aspect to people. It's like deciding to be the CEO of your own company rather than the middle manager in somene else's even if the pay is the same. Only your employees are stuck suffering there.

chrischen 5y ago

The best way to run things is the way I run things.

ghoward 5y ago

To learn some of the answers to those questions, may I suggest you start with a particular YouTube video [1] (and its sequel [2]) and the book that inspired them [3]? [1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs [2]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU https://youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator's_Handbook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator's_Handbook

NotChina 5y ago

No more corrupt than the USA.

SamTwardowski 5y ago
America and American elections aren't corrupt; they are fortified.

pjc50 5y ago

> anything else would be worse for me personally" No, that's mostly it. Along with an enjoyment of power and control and the suffering of others for its own sake. He's built a multi billion dollar palace, he's not going to risk losing power.

buran77 5y ago
That's the oversimplification that wraps things up nicely and doesn't require digging any deeper. Like when people think Kim Jong Un is necessarily just a madman without realizing that playing the madman is the perfect defense against outside interference. Give up their nukes? Ukraine did that, they even have a signed treaty with Russia for this. Iran signed a piece of paper with the US too. That turned out well for everyone who is a superpower. Authoritarianism isn't required to get richer than you could otherwise as an already powerful person. Look at democratic countries (all still having a measure of corruption) where having slightly more money and power than most people gives you access to huge wealth and immunity from the law, a positive feedback loop where money begets money. Did the Sacklers need to be crazy dictators to get even richer while throwing a wad of cash at the government in exchange for full immunity? Regular people get civil asset forfeiture but for rich people there no law to find them guilty and take back all the money, the only way is to negotiate a consolation settlement? Obviously lobbying for donations or plain old influence peddling will get you incredibly far, maybe even further than dictatorship. Putin doesn't need this level of authority to stay rich and powerful as a former member of the intelligence community. He needs it because he has grandiose dreams of Russian imperialism, bringing them back to former superpower glory after seeing that the post USSR breakup times and trying to integrate into the Western world made them play fifth fiddle. This needs the authoritarianism because Russia is lacking the other quality of life elements to afford selling the "glory" aspect to people. It's like deciding to be the CEO of your own company rather than the middle manager in somene else's even if the pay is the same. Only your employees are stuck suffering there.